Re-Imagining Systemic Change Around City Government

Have you ever wondered why we need to step down the curb to cross the street? ‘Raised crossings’ that extend the sidewalk across the street are both safer and more accessible. So why don’t we have them? Working as an advisor to governments, I kept returning to this question in all kinds of public services: Accessibility, curbs, education, inclusion, safety, technology, waste. Government projects too often resorted to old answers. My nagging unease led me to become a social entrepreneur. I wanted to put the much-neglected (and often despised) world of public procurement to better use, because it can help improve all of these services.

When we founded Citymart in 2010, we mobilized the traditional constituencies in public procurement: government users and suppliers. Our strategy was to inspire change by bringing thousands of new entrepreneurs with new ideas to the table. Behind the scenes, we built capacity, removed barriers inside government, and changed policies. Our mission was to do this in the public interest, channeling better solutions to provide better services for the ultimate beneficiaries—the communities.

We optimized for efficiency and effectiveness, a powerful value proposition to decision-makers in government—better outcomes at lower cost. A kind of one-click system change. And our success in 135 governments from Barcelona to Buenos Aires, London to Lagos, New York to Norfolk signalled that we were right. But time also taught us that we could have paid more attention to whose voice is asking for systems change. Like many public management improvements, we were speaking on behalf of communities to keep things moving, instead of taking the time to help them find their voice.

The pitfalls of social entrepreneurship

The way I worked was influenced by the special circumstances of being a social entrepreneur. It is different from both government and regular entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs reframe a societal problem, provide a new type of solution, institutionalize the approach through policy, and bring like-minded organizations together to create a new normal. This happens with support from our ecosystem: advisers, funders, colleagues, partners, friends.

Here’s an example: In Citymart’s early days we received corporate sponsorships to lower the fees for governments to participate in our programs. This allowed us to deliver outsized value to cities, creating early traction. But with time it became harder to reconcile the commercial needs of sponsors and the needs of cities without risking the integrity of our work. We could not find funders from philanthropy to step in, because at the time they either did not believe in subsidizing societal change through government, didn’t work internationally, or wanted to create their own programs emulating us. It was one of countless crossroads at which we had to re-invent our entire model to adapt to the ecosystem.

Many social entrepreneurs will, behind closed doors, talk about walking that fine line between creatively optimizing our tactics and the kind of hustle that begins to eat away at the mission. There is a lot more we can do in society, philanthropy, investment and government to help them stay on course, because the outcomes matter to us all.

Laying the red carpets for change in government

I am using my own story and the example of public procurement here to illustrate the obstacles and opportunities we have in changing government systems. In order to truly effect change in government, we must change the underlying structures and mindsets. We must rethink the systems that prevent us from achieving better outcomes in our communities, despite our best intentions.

And such change doesn’t just happen by itself. Social entrepreneurs face important choices: Should we offer solutions or technologies like Citymart that provide a fix? Should it happen from the inside out like the innovation team in Long Beach, California that is tasked with spreading the use of innovation to solve problems? Or should we build community pressure, which is how the Austin’s Equity Office came about after sustained campaigning by many local social justice movements? Choosing a path will never be simple, but we can create a more welcoming environment for all of them, not just in government, but in society as a whole.

Those we serve need to be put in charge

Communities, especially our most vulnerable people often lack the time, organizing and expert knowledge to develop comprehensive ideas for their future. Instead of imagining how society, economy, environment and government could be combined in new ways to help communities flourish, the agenda is made up of immediate decisions and fixes. Instead of making progress, we replicate old patterns.

Without such ideas, governments lack purpose. All too often I found change grinding to a halt, and not because of a lack of skills, tech, or resources. Those involved lacked legitimate purpose and conviction. Public procurement is a case in point: It is a system that allocates more than a trillion dollars a year in US municipalities alone. And yet, we don’t really know whether it is a service to government or a service to the public.

This distinction matters because it leads to very different outcomes. As a service to government, public procurement is optimized to the needs of civil servants and uses complicated contracts with established suppliers. By contrast, as a public service procurement tends to use flexible contracts to partner with suppliers and continually optimize for community outcomes. The former measures cost savings, the latter value added.

How do we establish permanent systems change?

As we face a sustained period of austerity, local and state governments in particular will be hard-pressed to deliver balanced budgets at a time of rising demand for services. This will accelerate the need for change, and as a society we need to provide answers.

Two urgent questions are on my mind. First, how can we create an environment in which those we serve can take charge, to become experts on their future. Second, how can we cultivate the kind of ecosystems in and outside government that recognize and support social entrepreneurs as the change agents for the kind of systems change that will allow us to weather austerity and build resilient communities.

I’ll be exploring these questions in my time at New America, and will be sharing my findings and recommendations over the coming months.